So. I am using a quote from a guy who probably was one of the best at seeking out ‘events’ rather than fear or avoid them. Therefore, it would be impossible to use my time today to discuss worrying about things that will never happen and fear of what could be, instead, this is all about the ‘impending event’ and fearing it.

In Nelson’s case it was huge cannons shooting big iron balls at him with the intent of taking his head off (and whoda thunk it would actually be a mini ball that would get him in the end).

But. You know what?

He took that bullet that killed him standing in full admiral dress uniform on the main deck in full view of his men and all his enemy to see. He was Leading.

Did he feel “fear?” Sure.

I am sure somewhere inside him he had to feel something. But the event took precedent.

I say that because fear, dread and worry are odd things. But very real odd things.

And because I am writing about ‘the event’ itself I will note these odd things affect ‘the event’. Ok. Maybe better said … they affect your performance at the event.

It is really important to talk about this. REALLY important. It is important because well all know that success, and effective performance, is most likely found in, as in ‘within’, the moment of the event … if you are not frozen with fear. It is actually called “seeking flow” (or Flow moments) but suffice it to say there is a certain ‘peace’, a certain contentment, if you can figure out how to accept the moment as it is (and you actually want to do your best at the event).

Fear saps focus.

Fear saps peace.

Fear saps contentment.

Fears saps flow.

And, worse, fear saps energy.

—————-

“Worry never robs tomorrow of its sorrow, it only saps today of its joy.”

Leo F. Buscaglia

——————-

Now. I will change this quote for my needs and say “it only saps today of its energy.” The constant litany of everything that should have been done, everything that needs to be done, everything you wish you had time to have done, all of which (in your mind) should be done better, sap energy that could be invested in the event.

That is a fine list of things I just shared all of which I would suggest are driven of fear of the event.

Now. I am not suggesting not being prepared or thinking through what needs to be done or anything like that. But events are meant to be commanded not feared. And the difference between approaching an event looking at both of these is significantly different.

I am sure we all have encountered that familiar tightening in your gut as you not only near the event but sometimes just even thinking about the damn thing.

And you know what? Deep breaths don’t do shit. Convincing yourself that everything will be okay doesn’t do shit. And building the perfect plan CERTAINLY doesn’t do shit.

(because inevitably it will all go to shit and you will fester and worry about that)

Let me tell you the conclusion of what will occur AFTER the event with worries … one of these 2 things:

“None of it happened (what I feared or worried about).”

“Some of what I feared happened.” (but it the world didn’t stop spinning)

Oh.

And then you will sit back and say “Shit, look at all the time I wasted” (fearing the event). I don’t want to diminish what anyone, and almost everyone, feels when an event occurs, but the truth is that the anxiety and fear associated with the event is a big fat frickin’ waste of time.

This includes imagining how everything was going to turn out badly was a waste of energy.

(and the people who suggest that doing such things made everyone better prepared are wrong … unequivocally wrong)

Some guy who had a crappy education and ended up on CNN or something like that said: “I’d been so focused on my doubts, on replaying that tape of me at my worst, that I’d forgotten who was truly helping me become the best I could be.”

Dude.

You got it (the issue). And you got it (what you wanted). So why waste all that energy on your ‘worst’ or your fears of the event because, well, you got it.

Ok.

The point.

Yeah.

I purposefully selected probably one of the best naval commanders of all time to make this point.

You can fear the event or you can command the event.

Boldness, or commanding the moment, does have a certain power to it. I won’t call it magic, but rather energy. And that makes fearing what is actually something that is inevitable (the event) is just plain silly. And just a plain waste of energy.

I don’t care if it’s a presentation, a speaking event, your driver’s test, an interview or, well, anything that could be construed as an event in everyday Life.

Accept they are inevitable events and seek to command.

Do not enter into the event in fear.

Stand on the deck amongst the bullets in full uniform and take what will come.

But.

Command. Do not fear the event. Command the event. To be clear. This does not mean you will win or, in the case of Nelson, die. But what it does mean is all the energy you do have will be focused on doing your best in the event which, well, means even if you lose, at least you have lost giving it your best.

“Perhaps we should love ourselves so fiercely that, when others see us, they know exactly how it should be done.”

—

Rudy Francisco

=====

Ok.

Society norms.

Group norms.

Individual norms.

They are (kind of) the three behavioral levels of why we do the shit that we do.

Each is powerful in its own right. And while creating alignment within all three can sometimes be a real bitch of a challenge, I would actually suggest we should view individual behavior the following way:

Society norms.

Individual norms.

Group norms.

I suggest this because I believe individual norms, our personal behavior, is constantly being squeezed by society overall as well as the groups in our circle of influence.

I note this because, if you are not careful, you get squeezed into, well, maybe not nothingness, but certainly “lessness.”

I note this to suggest you almost always have to fight back.

Okay. How about this instead?

Let’s say you gotta sharpen your elbows and create some space for you in between what society is suggesting <which often feels a lot like it is actually demanding> and what your current circle is outlining as the right way to think and behave.

It is fairly easy to sharpen your elbows and fight back, but without some thought you are simply fighting. You end up fighting with no purpose other than it feels good to fight back in some way. And while fighting back in and of itself is somewhat satisfying because you feel like you should it is less than satisfying because it has no real focus or purpose. I will not suggest it is completely ‘wasted energy’ but it is certainly less than efficient use of your energy.

So what about the ‘thought’ part then? This is where ‘knowing what you want and knowing who you are’ rears its ugly head.

Being “anti” something is pretty easy. I could actually suggest in some ways it is lazy. But what I do know for sure is that being “for something” is hard. Like … well … really hard. You not only have to convince yourself that what you are standing for is something … but also mentally accept it is not going to perfectly align with your group norms as well as the societal norms. Yeah. That means on occasion, maybe even often, you may not be in alignment with all the shit going on around you.

I would argue the former, convincing yourself, is the most difficult part.

Why?

Who I am today is not who I will be tomorrow … combined with … you cannot really hide from what will be … which makes fighting back partially a constant battle of movement and adaptation.

Here is what I know.

Society is not always right.

Your group is not always right.

So why should you always have to be right?

Fighting back isn’t about being “right.” It is simply about fighting for what is right … you. I will not call it individual rights but rather the right to be an individual. Maybe it is also partially a fight for the part of you that you love. I imagine this suggests you gotta find a part of yourself to love … but that I most likely a different post and thought for a different time.

But I love the quote I opened with. It is different than the typical “you have to love yourself before you can …” idea.

It is more about the benefit to you.

It is living Life by example. And maybe that is the bigger thought.

Fighting back against society … against some of your circle of acquaintances norms … is not about simply fighting for fighting sake but rather fighting to show that you, who you are and what you do, shines a fierce light on something you love <who you are and the things you do>.

Yikes. That’s kind of a scary thought. Maybe it is a “hope to attain one day“ type thought.

And you know what? That’s okay.

Hard.

But okay.

Hard because society & group norms suggest the only way you can fight back is to “know now” and not “hope to be.”

Fuck ‘em.

We are a work in progress. All of us and all ‘norms.’

No matter what society says and your group norms state <sometimes unequivocally> we are a constant work in progress. The fight is never a battle for ‘lessness’ … no one can even kiddingly suggest that … all norms at all levels desire ‘moreness.’

They may just not know how to do it or what it looks like.

If you love your ‘work in progress self’ fiercely maybe, just maybe, you will show how it’s done.

“Authority without wisdom is like a heavy axe without an edge, fitter to bruise than polish.”

―

Anne Bradstreet

==============

……… tweet from Republican National Party on June 14, 2018 ………….

Join or Else. If there is one common theme Trump and his merry band of corrupt amoral yahoos have espoused, this is it. Yeah. They may cloak it in some vapid superficial niceties, but, in the end, it “Join or Else.

That said. (stepping back to my words of January 2017)

———————————-

Well.

Yesterday was an interestingly disturbing day to begin “the new era of The United States of America.”

I listened to the Trump inauguration speech with growing horror. It had all the trappings of authoritarianism wrapped snugly in a blanket of patriotism & promises of wealth, security, strength and ‘greatness.’

I listened to it not just as a citizen but as a business guy.

Yeah. Populism can be seen in business just as it can be seen in politics. In business it can be called ‘the cult mentality’ and more often than not its leader is a ‘less-than-benevolent’ dictator. Let’s call it a ‘join, or else’ culture. You can drive membership in this culture a couple of ways … both grounded in fear.

Fear of losing <part 1>.Outsiders are trying to steal what is ours … people who don’t believe in what we believe in are trying to steal what is ours … join us because we are the people who count and matter.

I do not want to lose what is rightfully mine.

Fear of losing <part 2>.I am on the outside looking in and … well … holy shit … if I don’t join I am gonna lose everything <or be branded as a non joiner>.

I will join because if I don’t I am up shit creek without a paddle and lose what I have.

Businesses try this shit all the time. It is their way of building a strong culture, claiming it is inclusive, albeit inclusive is grounded by ‘a tight set of club rules.’ They will argue it is not a tight set but rather a basic construct which binds people in a good way … you call it tomato and I call it rotten. This Trump version of populism is, well, it goes beyond corporate cult culture. This version is close to being batshit crazy dangerous thought leadership.

Let’s look at the brochure and talk a minute with the Trump Club recruiter.

The cover of the brochure suggests an unstoppable America, driven solely by self-interest, in other words, our Club wins at all costs at the expense of anyone who stands in our way! <“if you want to win, join us” it says …>.

It further reads with threatening all those who might stand in the way of this Club and it’s winning/great objective. It contains an adamant stance of ‘no real choice’, i.e., a demanded unity not an asked for unity.

Yeah.

Some of the club benefits look awful good in the brochure … more & better jobs, stronger economy, stronger security, less business regulations and country pride. And then I turn over the brochure just to check out the legalese, the cost of the benefits as it were, to explore how the promises of the Club will be delivered.

The headline on the back of the brochure really wanted me to join this club … the message of “join today because today is the day the people become the rulers of this country.” I vaguely remember that being the call of the French Revolution but it sounds cool <although I could swear we, the people, have been voting in people as representatives for awhile>.

But. Whew. It sounds good. I like it.

It feels empowering and inspirational with the added comfort that I will no longer be one of “the forgotten people which will be forgotten no longer.” I know for sure that would like to not be forgotten and being part of a club would be nice and … well … gosh … uhm … now that I think about it … I didn’t know I had been forgotten.

The recruiter leans forward and says “of course you were, the intellectual globalist elite in Washington and around the world have been keeping you down … they don’t care about you … they have forgotten that it was you that made them part of the wealthy elite.”

Ok. But didn’t your Club President build his wealth off the backs of ‘forgotten people’ and … well … it seems like they aren’t any better off but he is a shitload better off, doesn’t it?

Oh … no, no, no … he appreciates everything they have done for him. Hey. And don’t you want to be wealthy too?

I look down at the brochure and I see the bolded ‘make wealthy’ words and have to ask the club recruiter, decked out in an ‘America first’ hat and neatly pressed ‘make America great’ uniform like shirt, I ask the recruiter … “this becoming wealthy thing … its sounds an awful lot like Amway.”

Oh, no, it is nothing like that at all. Our Club will make everything great for everyone and you will have great opportunities to get the wealth you have always deserved, but haven’t got, because the lazy, less than hard working elite will not get it anymore … we will make sure you get your fair share. Hey. Look at this picture of the Club President in his office … check out the gold curtains … the gold rug and the gold fixtures … that is wealth. That is what you can be part of!

Oh.

And, look, if you join today you get a hat <which you should wear as often as possible so that we can tell who is in the club and who isn’t>.

And, even better, we should have some additional pieces of apparel you can wear soon. In fact … we will have special uniforms & badges for the original club members to showcase their elite status in the club … everyone will want to wear them.

Ok. One last question … your club is “God’s chosen.” I didn’t know God chose … I thought he was all about equal among all men. Does this mean that other clubs don’t believe in God or does God just favor us? And does this mean I have to believe in your version of God and … well … what exactly is your version of God?

“Oh.

Well.

We are a Christian based club … but of course we accept anyone. But don’t forget … Christianity, above all, outlines all the values which lead to a better version of yourself … and, well, that is what we want all Club members to be able to achieve. Everyone should have values, don’t you think?”

Whew. This is fucking crazy shit going on

To be clear. A shitload of the club leaders and followers are going to try and draw some false comparisons and equivalents to past American heroes.

To be clear. This is significantly different than Thomas Jefferson’s plea for unity in his inaugural address in 1800 — “every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle.”

The Trump club has one principle and one opinion.

There is no room for anything else. More important than color of skin, religion, gender … this may actually be my root concern with ‘the club’.

The main principle?

Believe what I believe … or you are not a true believer.

That kind of seems to be the club. Kind of an “us versus them” attitude … uhm … although us <being a US citizen> is actually also them <being US citizens>.

“Oh no … no … why wouldn’t you believe in the United States of America if you lived in there? … everyone believes that. And if they don’t? … well … they should.”

Anyway. Oh. One last question. I didn’t hear it anywhere from the Club President or see it in the brochure … do you guys have a constitution?

Oh, we don’t need one. We just demand a ‘total allegiance to the Club’ … oh … which believes the same things as the country wants … so you should be all for it.”

(ME) Gosh. I am not sure I can join this club … I already have a constitution I live by … and my allegiance is, first & foremost, to that and not some Club and how they think. <period … end of statement>

Look. The one thing Trump was 100% right on is that January 20, 2017 was the dawn of a new era.

“Now comes the hour of action.”

That was the call for the Trump Club. “Join or else”is what should be heard.

Just to be clear.

I am a believer in God <however you want to define it>.

I am a patriot <however you want to define it>.

I am a proud American <however you want to define it>.

But I am not joining the club called “Trump America.”

In fact … I say ‘fuck you and your fucking club.’

As for what I will do? …………….

===============

“I was not born to be forced. I will breathe after my own fashion. Let us see who is the strongest.”

Ok. Today I take on the quasi-pervasive myth of ‘the best predictor of someone’s future behavior is their past behavior’ <which is actually not really true> and how to actually ‘predict’ some behavior <yet do so without invading someone’s privacy>.

———-

Psychological scientists who study human behavior agree that past behavior is a useful marker for future behavior. But …. only under certain specific conditions:

1. High-frequency, habitual behaviors are more predictive than infrequent behaviors.

—-

2. Predictions work best over short time intervals.

—-

3. The anticipated situation must be essentially the same as the past situation that activated the behavior.

—-

4. The behavior must not have been extinguished by corrective or negative feedback.

—-

5. The person must remain essentially unchanged.

—–

6. The person must be fairly consistent in his or her behaviors.

———

Well. That is certainly a list that filters a shitload of people OUT of past behavior predicting future behavior <how many of us have not changed ?>.

Projecting behavior, secrets and personal privacy in a transparent online world is a complex discussion. Oh. And it is also a formula that doesn’t quite add up to me: sharing a secret + seeking advice on what to do <personal behavior> does not equal personal privacy. In fact, it almost presumes shared privacy & sharing secrets <albeit with some limits I would assume> in order to receive the desired projected behavior tips & suggestions.
In other words, I cannot get something without giving something.

That said. I did not mistype the headline.

I imagine all of us have shopped online or read an article online where the website has a nifty feature which says something like “you may also like” or “if you bought this you may like” tips.

Well. Some smart writers came up with that wording because the technology <algorithms> behind all the analysis that allows the suggestions to occur is really saying to you “if you liked this you may want to DO this.”
Please note as I discuss this topic while technology has changed a shitload of things, technology is simply a facilitator <sorry … it is not evil in and of itself>. It is the deliverer of the real game changer — behavioral analysis.

Now. Behavioral analysis can quickly get abused in that if we people do not think for ourselves and assess the information and ‘guidance’ we receive, we simply become sheep to technology herders.

I shared that ‘sheep’ thought because there is something called life-logging <a wearable or portable technology> that not only tracks us and what we do and where we go, but it can quasi-predict your next ‘expected’ move. It actually predicts and encourages your next move as well as provides a personal stream of information of your life <hence the name ‘life-logging>.

Yup. This is the technology version of “if you did this then you really want to do this.”

I believe there are several options available now but I am going to highlight Saga <no longer in existence> because I liked the way they crafted and wrote their site information:

——–

Saga automatically records your real life story, as told by the places you visited and the things you’ve done. We all have a great story to tell. Let Saga tell yours. Remember Everything. Life is short. Capture every moment, even the little ones, in your lifelog. Learn about your habits and set meaningful goals with the insight you gain. the apps integrate with services including Twitter, Foursquare, and Instagram, enabling users to pool and manage their own personal data. Narrato provides users with a “lifestream” so that information is available in one place and exportable for users to manage and save, creating an extremely rich picture of the user’s activities.

——–

In doing some background research I have noted that lifelogging apps do everything in their power to suggest they are not stalkers or creepy. They talk about personal empowerment, ‘giving power to the user’, and that personal data is managed safely in their own personal cloud.

Ok. Before I tell you how it works. Let me move to ‘secrets’ for a moment which, by the way, is a version of security <or personal privacy>.

Lets face it. Like it or not <and boy oh boy older people do NOT like it> in a technology world secrets will be, well, fleeting.

In fact I sense the only way to keep a secret is to not place it anywhere in or on technology <in fact I just saw an article where Germany is suggesting using typewriters again solely to combat spying>.

Now. Before anyone goes ape shit on privacy and such … keeping secrets has never been easy.

In fact. People have always sucked at keeping secrets. Thinking that technology is ‘infringing upon things that are ours’ is archaic thinking <at least to some degree>. I am not absolving technology for having some moral & ethical guidelines, but let’s be realistic.

Anything comes with a price tag. Everything is a tradeoff. Ponder that as we shout about <secrecy & privacy>.

Uhm. We also seem to want ‘if you liked this you may like this.’ Can’t have both folks.

Sorry. And it is gonna get tougher for all of us as ‘lifelogs’ slide into our lives.

That said. How do lifelog apps work <in this case Saga as my example>? They use the sensors on your smartphone to build your lifelog. It records the places you’ve visited and the trips you’ve taken without any input from you. All you have to do is go about your Life, living it, and the sensors tag along for the ride <recording & capturing everything>.

It’s certainly not perfect because it cannot always guess your location correctly <the first time around>, but ongoing action and behavior constantly improves the location algorithms. Saga actually does a nice job explain this aspect:

——–

There are a few reasons why Saga could get your location wrong.

• The Problem: Your current location isn’t in our database. While Saga knows millions of places worldwide, chances are pretty good that your home, work, or favorite bench may not be in our database.

The Fix: It’s easy to add new places to Saga in the Change Place screen. And once you do, Saga should have no problem following you to all the places you go on a regular basis.

• The Problem: You may have a bad GPS fix. It happens. While GPS satellites are amazing, there are times that they’re just not accurate enough to figure out that you’re at the coffee shop and not the burger joint down the block.

The Fix: Buy yourself a personal GPS satellite. Or invest in a portable cell tower. Or just wait for a few minutes until you get a better connection. Saga will deal.

——-

• The Problem: You’re at a new or obscure spot. Saga can get confused if you go to a really obscure place. Especially if that really amazing, but unusual bar is right next to a super popular restaurant, shop, or landmark. When Saga can’t decide between two nearby places, it’ll often predict that you’re at the more popular place — just to be safe.

The Fix: Tell Saga where you really are. It’ll file that information away, and won’t make the same mistake twice. (Don’t worry, we won’t clue others into your secret little hideaway.)

——-

But here is where lifelogging behavioral is genius.

Because it is pop psychology <hence not really true> that ‘past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior.’

Oops. That psychology is not so much a fact.

Sorry. The truth is that the situation more often dictates behavior rather than anything we may have done in the past <and we also accumulate knowledge and therefore adapt>.

——–

“Researchers have determined that the situation plays a critical role in behavior. The situation is often more determinative than individual character traits. Personality theorist Walter Mischel – frequently cited in connection with the “best predictor” maxim – suggests that behavioral consistency is best described through if-then relationships between situations and behaviors, as in: “She does A when X, but B when Y.” So, a person may engage in heavy drug use when in the company of drug-using peers, but may stop using when she moves away and gets a fulfilling job.

———

This suggests lifelogging is genius. It can actually assist in managing some behavioral aspects at the prime time to do so, within context, situational context as a matter of fact. It can see past behavior, recent actions and movement behavior. It can predict by combining past behavior & situational context.

Ok. It cannot predict, but rather ‘smartly suggest.’

Anyway. While lifelogging sounds really cool <in one way> it also sounds quite ‘big brother-esque’ in another way. The app seeks patterns in human behavior recording how much time you spend going places and doing things. Based on this information the app then provides suggestions <and while we humans hate to admit it … we are quite susceptible to suggestions … uhm … particularly if they are based on past behavior>. Supposedly as we learn more about ourselves and what we do <behaviors> we would begin making decisions based on what they’ve learned about themselves and not what businesses are pushing down their throats.

I imagine we will all struggle a little bit on whether these apps predict things we would like to do or influence us in some way in ‘guiding’ us to some actions <this is a looped behavioral relationship difficult to discern beginning from end>.

As for the unequivocally good. There is a company called Geppetto Avatars which has developed a health care with virtual physician’s assistants <that quite feasibly could actually be smarter than any doctor in the world>. For example.

———

In one of the company’s allergy applications, a sympathetic young doctor named Sophie talks you through air quality and the pollen index in your neighborhood. Then, she makes sure that you’re taking your prescriptions right. When you tell her you’re feeling really bad, she gives a gentle “mmm-hmmm,” to let you know she’s been there and wants nothing more than to help you feel better.

———

Well.

After reading that and thinking ‘no computer can replace a doctor’ … I would suggest to you that here is where we face the true dilemma. When it comes to raw data — computers are smarter than us. The wealth of wisdom housed on connected hard drives around the globe is simply more than a human brain can handle. Therefore <using medicine as an example> when you go to the doctor no matter how smart & good the doctor is you really only have access to a fraction of knowledge.

That said.

People will be quick to point out the infamous ‘human factor.’ This is the tried & true anti-technology point of view that computer programs have always lacked the ability to read body language, non-verbal cues, and all those parts of communication that make us human.

Uh oh. THAT is changing too. As with most of these interactive type applications, the more you use it, the better job it does at reading you — picking up whether your voice is hoarse or your breathing labored, or whether you sound worried or anxious. There are programs in development now <some actually in market> which are able to detect your mood, read your state of mind, and respond accordingly with one of its tens of thousands of recorded answers. Yes. There are limits and having worked with a telemedicine app I have seen the human/technology dynamic firsthand, but we would be silly to ignore the value of a technology augmenting human expertise/wisdom.

Whew. So these new apps can also share your information with anyone you choose — from a health care professionals to your favorite store. On the flip side, these apps also share your information with people you don’t choose <this is the seamy side of data gathering>.

This is our brave new world. Regardless. Like it or not giving some technology some information about us will make our world, and Life, better.

Ok. I say all this because there is a shit load of discussion going on about privacy. I actually suggest this is going to be a clash of generations. Older folk think ‘big brother’ and ‘invading my privacy’ <I will also note here that these are the same people who cannot understand how young people share everything on twitter, snapshot and any social media channel>.

On the other hand younger people think … “hmmmmmmmmm … convenience.” Gratification faster.

Look. We older people don’t get it. We are not only afraid of ‘having someone know too much’ but also don’t get that younger people are just more comfortable with sharing some things than we are. By the way I would also suggest to old folk that younger people certainly understand limits with regard to what they share.

Simply because they share things we cannot fathom ever sharing … they will protect their ‘important secrets’ as well as anyone older.We are going to just throw up roadblocks and bitch & moan about privacy and all the shit that old people bitch about as young people pass them by. If you liked this, you may want to consider this.

Behavioral tools are here to stay and will be used by everyone, well, everyone being anyone under the age of say 35 or so.

I used to tell people we use research to INFORMdecisions and not MAKE decisions.

Then.

I told people we use numbers to INFORMdecisions and not MAKE decisions.

Then.

I told people we use data to INFORMdecisions and not MAKE decisions.

Now.

I tell people we use algorithms to INFORMdecisions and not MAKE decisions.

—-

Me

===============

“An idea of working based on three pillars: science, insight and faith. Science because I’m a social scientist by training. I believe in data, robustness of information, making sure you’re on the right track. Insight because if you’re not able to draw insights from research, you’re not a strategist, just someone observing the data. And faith because you never know what’s going to work, so you always need a bit of faith to get everyone started.”

—

Laura Chiavone

================

I believe great companies have one common infrastructure characteristic: culture. Good companies can be grounded in systems, processes, operations, etc, however, the step up to ‘great’ demands a culture (which is always implemented by people) to elevate the ‘infrastructure aspects. I thought of this because Mike Walsh has a new book, The Algorithm Leader, which suggests that the most successful companies of the future will support/augment/enhance that culture infrastructure – with algorithms. Now. Before anyone defaults into thinking this translates into “empty soul, technology order taker” company, or even holocracy (ponder how polar opposites could be relevant to the algorithm topic), let me share some thoughts on how I believe the thinking suggests structural value creation lift: for business & humans. To me this will occur through a balance of stability (knowledge infrastructure), uncertainty (quests versus missions) & understanding of Antifragility (selective redundancy maximizing untidy opportunities).

Let me pose some thoughts on the relationship between algorithms and antifragility upfront.

====================

“It is optionality that makes things work & grow.” AntiFragile

Maybe algorithms shouldn’t provide answers, but options. Maybe, more importantly, we become a little less comfortable with the need for construct and more comfortable with using algorithms as dynamic application of ‘movable construct’ at the right time & place.

“The antifragility of some comes necessarily at the fragility of others. In a system the sacrifice of some units – fragile units or people – are often necessary for the well-being of other units or the whole.” AntiFragile

Algorithms should enable an organization to identify progress paths to explore and discover rather than simply meet the needs of present identified ‘paths’ of progress or solve present identified issues & vulnerabilities.

=================

Full disclosure on my business beliefs. Throughout my career I have always felt comfortable by making the less certain decisions just certain enough that someone would go “well, it seems riskier, but, if you own it, go do it.” I say all that because I believe all Future of Work discussion should be grounded on the relationship between certainty & uncertainty – for the business, the people within the business organization and people’s minds/attitudes.

Algorithm leadership.

Most people want certainty therefore they let research make decisions, use numbers to make decisions, show data to make decisions and, increasingly, will suggest algorithms make decisions.

This is just a different type of efficiency couched in efficient operations. It will be called “efficient decision making.” The problem is this efficiency is just an attempt to strip a decision of uncertainty and, well, the best, most effective; decisions always carry along some burden of uncertainty.

The former is about figuring out how to maximize from disorder or uncertainty while the latter is not becoming too dependent upon seemingly ‘certainty.’

—

“The future of companies, regardless of size, will be shaped by algorithms.”

Mike Walsh

—

Ultimately, it will be humans who use the shapes created by algorithms to assess options, evaluate antifragile components and navigate asymmetrical uncertainty.

It within this dynamic environment in which we should note business is inherently fragile. HBR once said “business is a quivering mass of vulnerabilities.” I say that because as a pendulum swings one way it will inevitably want to swing the other way. We inherently feel the fragile pendulum swing and start seeking to build ‘un-natural’ antifragile aspects to create a sense of antifragility. Aspects like systems, process, rules, KPIs, data/dashboards and, yes, algorithms. Depending on how fragile we see, or feel, the business to be the more likely we use the created mechanisms to ‘tell us what to do.’ We must fight against those instincts.

Frankly, this is where generations DO become relevant in discussing business. Older workers, 50somethings, can be an impediment by seeing past experience as ‘certainty’ . On the other hand, some 50somethings can actually be a bridge between some certainty-type learnings and younger people who are more comfortable with disorder (but they don’t necessarily have the expertise do discern the best bridges between certainty & uncertainty).

Here is what I do know. Business people inherently abhor risk, business organizations inherently gravitate toward the ‘safest’ and numbers, research, data & algorithms look like life rafts in a risky, safe seeking business world. That said. I also know progress is rarely found without some risk and is often found on ‘not-the-safest’ path. Algorithms create a false sense of ‘right thing to do.’ any leader who leans on algorithms too much isn’t leading. Period.

Uncertainty leadership.

For this I lean in on How to Lead a Quest by Dr. Jason Fox. In times of uncertainty a business does not need business ‘heroes’ but rather people aligned on a quest and leaders who embrace the uncertainty of a complex interconnected multi-dimensional business world.

—-

“You must learn to be still in the midst of activity and to be vibrantly alive in repose.”

Indira Ghandi

—-

Contrary to popular belief I would suggest a highly successful algorithmic leader is likely a 50something who has navigated research, then data, the ‘dictating’ decisions challenge gauntlet, & who were more likely to see how seemingly unrelated disparate fragments could be coalesced into decisions and futures that the numbers/data didn’t completely support, but also did not completely discount. That ws a long winded way to introduce the idea of “data decipherers”. This type of leadership invaluable to an organization more & more steeped in numbers, dashboards, data & algorithms.

Jason Fox calls this “shining a light on the path before us.” leadership will not use algorithms for ‘squinting into the future but rather to identify the stepping stones in a sea of uncertainty. They will offer people moments of some certainty without promising a certain future nor even promising steady progress organizationally. It will be more about uncovering options, making choices to alleviate stressors, so that teams can breakthrough while others provide the organization with the redundancies to protect an organization from uncertainty vulnerabilities.

Here is what I do know. psychologically businesses will arc toward a belief algorithms will provide an increased tidiness and symmetry to business. that is a false sense of tidiness. Business will become increasingly untidy, the paths will become increasingly complex, therefore business will become increasingly uncertain with regard to the best, and proper steps, necessary for progress. Pragmatically business will need more, and better, leadership comfortable with uncertainty despite more numbers, data and algorithms.

Antifragile leadership.

Crisis, disaster resolution is rarely about resources available but rather people availability.

Here I lean in Taleb’s AntiFragile because I just reread it. We tend to build redundancies incorrectly, don’t assume for disorder well & only enhance fragility in plans. We too often see AntiFragile as a “leadership concept” when in reality it is best absorbed by Agile teams.

Risk management almost always solely focuses on resources necessary to sustain, and manage, foreseen crisis. As Taleb points out the largest flaw in that is most crisis do not look similar to ones on the past (they will have similarities but still be unique). In addition. Most organizations build in redundancy safety nets as, well, a net. Because we dislike fragility so much we start building in antifragile everywhere. We tend to think of leadership as “what if” redundancy design. Antifragile leadership should be more ‘aligning resources to meet different scenarios.” Some people would call this ‘agile.’ I would not. I would simply call this pivoting (I am old school). great businesses have always been able to pivot to meet market challenges and opportunities. This may be a hyperized version of that, but it is still pivoting – no more, no less.

This is where I would view using algorithms a little differently than other people. Algorithms tend to look at opportunities when I believe they could be better used to identify stress points and stressors. Most good leaders are best as problems solvers (that doesn’t mean they don’t optimize existing operations/situations just that where good leaders get paid the big bucks is getting moments/situations unstuck). I would also argue identifying stressors permits smarter experimenting and tinkering.

Here is what I do know. Algorithms, used properly, permit people to stop just optimizing for the present and start attempting to optimizing the future. Yes. It may mean being less efficient in the short term (sometimes), but, done well, will create a more effective long term construct.

Conclusion:

I think we will be “directed to act” by algorithms, but not managed by. The latter demands acceptance of algorithm as qualified to make us to do something behaviorally, the former demands we accept algorithms as something that ‘informs’ our doing. Somewhere in between is the decision of how much we, people, are accountable for thinking. Algorithms inherently encourage us to believe business is not best when it is random. Yet. The best businesses resist the urge to suppress randomness and permit people to be more accountable for some untidy decisions with some untidy outcomes.

All businesses will exist, in some form or fashion, grounded in algorithms. I am fairly sure that’s a given. The challenge will be to not get consumed by algorithms.

To realize algorithms do not give answers, but outline options.

To realize algorithms don’t define redundancies, but rather where and when to apply redundancy resources (therefore help to define how to create proper redundancies).

“The primary cause of unhappiness is never the situation, but thoughts about it.

Be aware of the thoughts you are thinking.”

–

Eckhart Tolle

====

I am not a big fan of simply saying “it is what it is” mostly because … well … most times it is much much more than that. However. Sometimes. Yes. Sometimes it “is” simply because it, well, is. At these times I would note we get unhappy. Usually not because of the situation, but rather because of the thought behind it.

<please note: I imagine I have just bastardized Tolle’s real thinking, but it fits what I want to say>

Anyway. I attribute the our true unhappiness behind the thinking of “it is what it is” to one of two things:

– Occam’s razor:

This is the thought that “the simplest explanation that fits the facts is usually right.”

I like to think it is called Occam’s razor probably because the thought cuts straight to the truth, but ‘experts’ suggest the term razor refers to distinguishing between two hypotheses either by “shaving away” unnecessary assumptions or cutting apart two similar conclusions.

Whatever.

Sometimes the simplest explanation is all there is. It is what it is.

And we hate not only Occam, but his frickin’ razor.

– Illogical pragmatism:

Some things just cannot be explained. It sounds illogical, but, pragmatically, any explanation is illogical. Or just illogically complex. Therefore, there is no explanation. Pragmatically, it is just what it is. Illogical as it may sound. And while we like pragmatism, we hate anything illogical. And we particularly hate if the pragmatic is illogical.

That said. Very few things frustrate us more than when there is no explanation for something. It drives business people frickin’ crazy.

Oh. What do business people hate maybe even worse? That Occam thing. The simple concise explanation. The understanding that simpler explanations are, other things being equal, generally better than more complex ones is not an idea we really like in business. Yeah. We talk about simplicity in a fond way, but most times we hate it. More often we struggle to accept the simple and revel in the complex.

This love of complex really has nothing to do with solutions but rather we like having things explained to us. That is typically where things get complex. Simple explanations are, well, unbelievable <crazy, huh?>.

Now. I actually believe we manage this fairly well in everyday life, but really suck at this in business.

Whew. “It is what it is” at work? Never. Or maybe at best … rarely.

My point? Most things have an explanation.Let’s say maybe 90% or so.

Most things obviously have real definitive explanations and some things have enough of an explanation that they have some edge or tangibleness to them, but it’s the stuff in the middle that requires a more subtle explanation or even an admittance of sheer uncertainty of “why is this as it is.”

Ah. That’s 10% or so.

Well. Sometimes things just “are.” And explanations are too complex … and frankly … unnecessary <albeit frustrating to not have one>.

Sure. We should be diligent with regard to inevitable straying into a complacent belief believing that things ‘just are’ and there is nothing you can do <or should do> to change it to make it better or to actually avoid true explanations where they are merited. And while it frickin’ kills me to suggest “it is what it is” … some things just are, and no matter how much you wish they were different, they’re not.

That said. We have difficulty in trying to understand that there can be some things that fall in the non-explanation category <that wretched ‘middle’> that it is neither in the good nor the bad category <by the way … not being able to explain does not make it inevitably bad>.

We seem too often to have to have an explanation to satisfy us. And it’s this sense of ‘satisfaction seeking’ that we should be wary of <or maybe it simply leads us astray and we should be wary of getting lost – insert ‘weeds’ here ->.

The unexplained is very unsatisfying. Someone wrote this:

“The Unexplained” has a somewhat sinister connotation to our adult minds because it puts us on shaky ground. Our reason has nothing to hang on to. When circumstances are not to our liking, we are likely to use phrases like, “I demand an explanation” or “You’ve got some explaining to do!” Of course this has not so much to do with shedding some light on the situation as it has to do with making ourselves feel safer, more secure in the midst of something which has inconvenienced us.

We can even become suspicious, paranoid, fearful and neurotic if our dependence on explanations is too strong and we cannot actually find one.

In my words … it can kind of drive us nuts. We need to realize that sometimes we put way too much emphasis on trying to figure out what is right and wrong … or even worse … seeking an explanation for something that just ‘is.’

Look. With so much unpredictability and seeming chaos in business <because shit moves so fast> sometimes the explanation really doesn’t matter.

It just is.

It is the way it’s supposed to be.

It is just the way it happened.

All the over analysis, over thinking, over planning, over explaining doesn’t accomplish anything. While it may make us feel better putting an ultimate <but incredibly convoluted and complex> explanation on something, sometimes it doesn’t accomplish anything <useful>.

In fact all that thinking trying to identify ‘the explanation’ can freeze you to a point where you get stuck over thinking — all in the attempt in trying to rationalize everything.

You can get overwhelmed not by the situation <or the amount of situations> but simply by the lack of explanation.

You can get overwhelmed not by the chaos of complexity, but rather by the act of ignoring, or even arguing against, the simple solution <the fact it ‘just is’>.

So much of our stress and anxiety comes from our attempts at finding an explanation or even a simpler ‘is it good or bad’ definition to the challenge or situation. Yeah. We like things to be a certain way <mostly not simple>. Yeah. We like the feeling that things in life should be generally good. And, yeah, explanations help us define good or bad <or at least help us define blame or resolution or whatever>. Yeah. We just like explanations. Simple, complex, any size shape or form … we will take anyone we can get.

Regardless.

The bottom line? We are reluctant to accept things that cannot be defined or explained. We hate “it just is what it is” things.

Look. Explanations are good … and bad.

Good in that it helps to have some boundaries and guidelines and … well … definition <or Life would just be some nebulous blob … disgusting thought, huh?>.

Bad in that some things are simply undefinable therefore forcing an explanation into a ‘it is what it is’ scenario creates some unfair & untrue conclusions.

Anyway.

Some things are simpler than we make them out to be.

And some things just cannot be rationally explained.

And sometimes it just isn’t worth investing the energy trying to rationalize it.

“Simplicity is the final achievement. After one has played a vast quantity of notes and more notes, it is simplicity that emerges as the crowning reward of art.”

—

Frédéric Chopin

==================

Whew.

Simplicity.

Discussing what is simple, and what is simplicity, maybe one of the most complex and complicated topics you will ever discuss.

It is, well, never simple.

I sometimes think we get confused when we discuss simplicity. For simplicity is not actually achieved in the stimulus … or in the delivery … but rather in the response.

Now. That doesn’t mean a ‘simple’ stimulus is unable to generate a simple response. In fact it may more often than not. Uhm. “May”. Simple stimuli are just as likely to confuse. Provide ambiguity. Generate a feeling of ‘less than.’ In other words, they simply communicate nothing. So when someone says ‘show a picture’ or ‘say it in 5 seconds or you lose them’ and be done with it … I just don’t think it is that simple.

That is simply looking at it from a stimulus point of view. Now. That’s not a bad place to start … but it is a means to an end. Far too often we look at that as the answer when the reality is simplicity can be delivered in so many ways your head will spin.

Chopin got it right. He wrote music which could often be complex and intertwined with nuance … but simplicity was achieved in the final achievement. And that is about writing, or creating, from the edge.

Let me explain.

Writing things from the edges has nothing to do with danger or risk taking or even ‘living on the edge’ type perceptions everyone seems to have. The edge is simply less cluttered. It is what simplicity is about.

People seem to get very very confused when they talk about simplicity and complexity, but if you want to make sense of a lot of shit — just move your ass closer to an edge.

It is not scary.

It is simply clearer there.

Well. I guess clarity can be scary … but you get my point.

All I know is that when I write … or think … I do my best when I place my chair and laptop on the edge and think.

Ok. Let me talk some business.

Simplicity as edging closer to the edges.

In business … no matter how we choose to communicate a brand <public relations, broadcast, print, web, whatever> the only place where the brand truly exists is in the heads of people.

I say that because when you start discussing this whole wacky branding thing ‘edge’ rarely enters the conversation. Sure. Simplicity does, but not edge. This means a boatload of companies <and a shitload of start-up businesses> think they can just use a visually driven smart ass attention-grabbing approach to their advertising and they will conquer the world. They think this kind of simplicity will grab some prime real estate in our already overcrowded brains.

To be clear. This is a crappy idea, but one that even traditional companies find tempting. Smart-ass ads often get talked about and noticed, but, just as often, they fail to make a brain connection. In other words … they get attention but they don’t get results.

Look. Our minds are like real estate. Space is limited and we can’t let every brand have a place to stay.

However, you can improve your chances of gaining brain space and making a connection—a brain and brand connection that will truly inspire recall and the desired outcomes.

How? Well.

Someone had an idea called ‘brand humanity.’

Brand humanity, in its simplest terms, is a brand’s emotional essence. It must be inherent in the product or service offered. It must be relevant to people’s dreams, hopes, desires, aspirations. It must relate in human terms to human beings. Advertising must capture and communicate this emotional essence. If it doesn’t, somebody must go back to the drawing board. Because a brand that doesn’t appeal on basic human levels really has no hope of success in today’s marketplace.

Whether you like the ‘brand humanity’ nomenclature or not it is a good thought but not a simple thing to do.

And, no, I am not suggesting creating a complex complicated stimulus is needed to achieve this objective, but I am simply suggesting that a soundbite or one visual may not achieve what you want. Want?:

What makes this brand important to someone?

What need does it meet <or problem it solves>?

What desire <Maslow stuff> does it fulfill?

Answer the questions, and you’ll find the connection points of the brand. But don’t expect the journey to be easy. Finding the points takes a disciplined, strategic development process that moves from the complex to the simple, from the rational to the emotional. It is finding out what is important to a person and creating that connection. I imagine it is as simple as finding what truth will make it matter to a person. But in writing that … we all know that truth is never really simple nor easy.

What I do ask people to think about when discussing simplicity is to remember that everyone loves a good story. And the best business <brand> stories are all about reaching inside people at a deeper and more enduring emotional level to link to the functional offering you provide. Some people call his ‘personalization’ but it is really just attaching the functional problem being solved with personal ‘issues’ … Maslow stuff … self esteem <conformity versus individuality>, self doubt and economic well being. I would also note the best stories are simple incorporating elements of hero, conflict, and goal <note: whatever you say has to be simple enough that it can be told by any consumer or front line sales people>.

This means the company & brand is no longer just about differentiated services, consistent delivery, optimized touch-points, and re engineered activities. Brands now need this ‘humanity’ <not to be confused with social responsibility> based in experiences, distinct identifiable moments and character.

I think we could take some lessons from technology.

Technology has ALWAYS <not just in today’s world> been an interesting thought leader with regard to simplicity. Their core expertise has always been in the business of masking the complex with simplicity.

Things like flipping a switch to turn on a light bulb, picking up the phone and hearing a dial tone, or pressing a button and turning on a television set are only easy on the surface.

Someone had to spend years developing the underlying technologies that enable much of our modern lives, and then they had to make sure that the tools were accessible to people and that while we didn’t understand why it worked as it did, we trusted it to work.

This principle carries to the mobile age with enabling touch-screens where sliding a finger to unlock a phone is simple … the technology that makes it possible is not.

All that said.

Simplicity and stories: hero, conflict, goal.

– Pick the conflict that matters

– Differentiate resolution of conflict meaningfully

– Imbue the character of the hero in every action taken to resolve the conflict

Good stories are fairly simple. The story needs to remain simple in its focus, i.e., the simpler it is the better. The simplicity has to be relevant … in being desirable to consumers, distinctive <not necessarily unique> from competition, deliverable by the organization and durable over time.

If you stay true to simplicity <not simple>, you make it simpler for people to connect with it. And if you make it easy, they’ll gladly give you some prime brain real estate which every marketer is so desperate to get hold of.

Therein lies the issue.

Easy and simple is in the eyes of the beholder.

In the end.

Despite the fact you can have experts lining up to tell you all about what simplicity is … and how to use simplicity to create a brand and make an impression … we’re not sure exactly how or where the human brain makes the connections that make a brand possible.

All I know for sure is that there is no formula for simplicity.

Chopin nailed the issue.

His music was complex and sometimes complicated.

And, yet, people sit and listen for minutes on end … and say afterwards: “that was simply beautiful.”

I imagine I am simply saying simplicity is not defined in how you say or communicate something, but rather how it is accepted.

Simplicity may be one of the most complex concepts in the world and, yet. we relentlessly discuss it in simplistic ways. “It seems simple …” may be one of the most misused and misguided statements and thoughts in today’s world.

I tend to believe we make simplicity, well, simple because when viewed in hindsight we pick & choose what seemed like something that changed in a blink of an eye because of some simplicity.

We look backwards and point at what appears to be simplicity and say “yes, that’s it.”

But.

Simplicity, more often than not, consists of two opposing things – 1st, security/reliability, which anchors the sense of safety thereby justifying the 2nd common sense aspect of simplicity, & passion/risk/newness, which anchors the sense of movement thereby justifying the smartness aspect of simplicity — sense of stability AND movement.

The two are opposed. Yet, in a “simple world”, if you have one, you can’t have the other.

In addition. Simplicity is at its best when the decision, or act, is a reflection of staying true to oneself <or the organization/business> and when the decision makers are in their element <not being asked to collaborate or be involved if & when it is not their strength>.

Uh oh. This means simplicity, which should be reflective of the situation at hand, is rather a reflection of two very personal things:

Attitude: safe and risk

Self compass: true to oneself <strengths>

And therein lies the foundation of complexity. We live in a world of collaboration and anything but individuals and individuality in business ideation & implementation . Basically, simplicity is being demanded by the whole and implemented by the parts. Aligning attitudes and desires is difficult. And so is insuring aligning in strengths in today’s idealistic view of collaboration.

And maybe that is where simplicity faces its most difficult contradiction – facing the conflict in aligning making bigness small <in vision for the whole> and capturing the importance, and bigness, of the small.

Here is what I mean.

The whole thrives on overarching simplicity while the parts thrive on the underlying simplicity of details <which are inherently simple individually but complex as a collective whole>.

Even suggesting that there are two levels of simplicity implies complexity.

But most importantly we, in business, take ideas, big & small, and try and forge them into their most simplest strongest honed forms all the while seemingly forgetting that … well … it is not just an idea, but the people involved that matter. Inevitably the idea needs to impact people’s attitudes & behaviors. And we would be silly to think that even the idea itself, as it is forged by each individual blacksmith, isn’t being crafted with some individualistic attitudes & behaviors.

In addition even if whatever you are trying to simplify sounds simple in your own mind <as an idea simplifier> the idea is more likely to be impacted by other people and other constituents. Many “simplicity arguers’ would argue that involving so many constituents makes simplicity needlessly complex … and they would be right … and wrong.

Yes. It makes it more complex.

No. They are wrong in that it is not needless. The complexity actually brings in the pragmatism of reality <and I would argue effectiveness.>.

All this means is that simplicity is rarely simple and trying to capture them in a meaningful single word is not only silly but sells the depth & breadth of a decision or situation short. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t seek simplicity. But what it does mean is that simple or simplicity shouldn’t be defined by rules or milestones or trite “say it in 10 seconds or less” dictates or, well, any boundaries. Simplicity is reflective of the time, place, people, situation and solution needed.

What may make simplicity even more complex is, oddly enough, that part which should make it the simplest. Simplicity, more often than not, is the nitty gritty stuff and not the more glamorous big vision or “big idea” stuff. It is about marrying principle and pragmatism and gradual improvement – piece by piece and part by part.

In other words … simplicity IS the complexity.

Simplicity is the watchword of the day. But we don’t want to give up our freedom to choose — we want options, we want products and services that fit our individual circumstances. All those choices give us the antithesis of simplicity: they give us complexity. So how do we get simplicity without giving up choice? We need simplicity and complexity together, we need simple complexity. What we want is SIMPLEXITY.

Source

Simplexity is actually a term used in the mathematics of complexity theory. A woman named Susan Abbott hijacked it for the Marketing and Customer Experience world. Jack Cohen and Ian Stewart, authors of The Collapse of Chaos: Discovering Simplicity in a Complex World, came up with the term in this context.

Maybe it is because of his ‘simplexity’ in everything we do and own <which we love> hate at exactly the same time> we tend to want to attach ‘more’ to simplicity. I wrote once before that great simplicity seems too bare and that simplicity is not defined in how you say or communicate something, but rather how it is accepted.

Suffice it to say, great simplicity seems to beg to remain less <which too us hasty perfection-oriented people seems not enough>.

Simplicity tends to not end with a bang but rather a whimper.

Ok. I am going to end with a business point here.

What I just shared is also what I believe is the reason why businesses comfortable in a project based relationship, rather than an annual contract based relationship, are doing well.

Huh? Go back to the desires of the whole versus the desires of the parts point I made earlier. There are certainly business opportunities for the whole & the parts. Some call this a belief that simplicity sells, but you need complexity to scale. However, philosophically, what links any business success discussion to a whole OR parts discussion is the success of components rather than simplistic vision. Not to degrade the value of vision, but success inevitably is grounded in the grind, the confident steps taken in the interest of progress and actual “doing-type stuff.” And that is where “visionary consultants”, sometimes called “smart tree planters”, get it wrong. They envision a rich green plush forest and all the while inadvertently complicate the actual planting of the frickin’ trees.

In the absence of anything else, shit still needs to be done. And each part needs to be done well without sacrificing the wellness of the whole. The business world, and businesses in general, is ever increasingly interconnected <internally & externally> and ignoring that, simply thinking that if my part does my part well that the whole will succeed is … absolutely and completely flawed thinking.

The parts are always, always, connected in some way with the greater whole.

So therefore a project always needs to be done well and done correctly, the true winner in the project world is the one who recognizes the greater whole and can seamlessly slide its successful part into the greater whole. For a project based company the value rises up … successful project management, successful project integration into the rest of the puzzle and ultimately, even in some small way, successful involvement of the furthering of the greater vision of the whole. It is ground up value building with, I imagine, the ultimate intent to gain additional business relationship assignments up the value chain.

All that said. I believe I am simply suggesting that businesses in the project business not only build value with business partners the easiest way <pragmatically> but also build business relationships in the simplest way <through parts rather than whole>.

I also believe in today’s business world that despite some mental angst a hirer of a supplier/partner has when viewing project relationships versus long engagement relationship a hirer business actually prefers the concept of initially hiring on a project basis <seems like a trial period> and maintaining on a project basis <seems like an ability to eliminate at any point type flexibility> and extending on a project by project basis <seems like less risk because they have proven before and more value because project implies “not taking the work for granted”>.

Oh.

And a project sounds so much simpler than a long term relationship. Uhm. But if I have been working with you on a project basis for over 5 years isn’t that a long term relationship?

Geez.

Just one more example of how simplicity is complex.

Business and Life tends to rush toward the complex simply because it most likely offers us the perception of ‘more value’ and additional control and ‘something better’ and, yet, we yearn for this faux Utopia found in a place called ‘simplicity’.

But. Simplicity, in its heart and soul, is made up of two opposing attractive qualities: safety & consistency + risk & new.

Up to a point a man’s life is shaped by environment, heredity, and the movements and changes in the world around him. Then there comes a time when it lies within his grasp to shape the clay of his life into the sort of thing he wishes to be. Only the weak blame parents, their race, their times, lack of good fortune, or the quirks of fate.

Everyone has it within his power to say, ‘This I am today; that I will be tomorrow.’

The wish, however, must be implemented by deeds.”

–

Louis Lamour

===============

So. This is about living Life and personal velocity (progress with momentum). I have written about self esteem and self image and living life, but until now I have never found a quote that summarizes a belief I have always had lurking in the back of my head.

“Then there comes a time when it lies within his grasp to shape the clay of his life into the sort of thing he wishes to be.”

How awesome is that? (pretty awesome)

It is absolutely true that a lot of what may hold us back from our dreams, or maybe more importantly, being whatever it is we want to be isn’t our fault <or in our control>. Life throws a shitload of shit at us. It would be foolish to not recognize that.

But.

The days when nothing seems to go right.

The days where dreams seemed to have vanished.

The days where ‘not drowning’ is the focus instead of ‘swimming.’

All those days are gonna happen – to all of us. And it is on these days where it becomes really really easy to focus on excuses. But. We do have power to shape our tomorrows. Ignore the excuses and recognize that even if circumstances make things difficult, improving things is NOT impossible.

Sure. Sometimes a little ingenuity is required. Sometimes you almost have to trick circumstances. Sometimes you have to zig when Life zags and sometimes you have to take some risks and get a little lucky.

Which leads me to these words:

“That I am today; that I will be tomorrow.”

Absolutely … most people underestimate what they can do today.

Absolutely … most people over estimate what they can do tomorrow.

Despite that … it still comes down to two things: action and objectives.

Actions.

What I am tomorrow depends on what I do today. My actions today make me who I am tomorrow. You get it.
This is all about first step, baby. Takin’ that first step. You constantly hear “I’ll do it tomorrow”. And when it doesn’t happen tomorrow, it becomes the next tomorrow and the next and …. well … you get it (and I will explain why under objectives).

But. While you hear that … what is actually the truth? What do people really do? (and you just may not always see it)

Here is the truth behind actions and this thought. People who decide mentally to “do something” actually, uhm, do something. No shit. They do take action. They do begin to “shape the clay of their life to become what they want to be.” They do.

Then what is the problem?

Objectives.

Doing is often dependent upon how we view our objectives and this sometimes gets mired down in meeting the sometimes farcical absurd expectations in the mind. That said. Let me take a minute on ‘objectives.’ Scott H Young wrote in May 2006, in a piece called “Balancing Today and Tomorrow“, about a nifty concept called “velocity based thinking (or goal setting)” versus positional goals:

—————————

How is it possible to balance living in each moment and the concept of personal growth and improvement? Doesn’t personal development imply a certain dissatisfaction with where you are in life? At the very least, doesn’t an obsession with personal growth indicate that you are constantly living in the future, rather than enjoying each moment? How can we remove this apparent dichotomy and get the improvement we desire along with satisfaction now? In other words, how can we live for today and still strive for tomorrow?

The old position based paradigm told us to focus on where we are in life. If we have a big house, a nice family and are in good health, then we can be happy. If we are poor, miserable and alone then we are depressed. Pretty simple. In this paradigm, our main focus is on our current position.

Some take this position based thinking to a slightly higher level when they don’t think about where they are but where they are going. Instead these people draw their level of happiness from the position they feel they will be in the future. Although this is an improvement, the cost of being unsatisfied with today is simply too high a price to pay for this paradigm.

There is an alternative paradigm, however. This is a velocity based paradigm. In this paradigm, where you are doesn’t matter. It doesn’t even matter where you are going to end up. From this perspective, our focus not where we are going, but rather, the rate we are getting there. This perspective tells us that being homeless or a millionaire makes no difference. It is only the rate at which they are improving that distinguishes them.

The major distinction between a velocity based goal and a position based one is mostly in how you view the goal. Positional goals are usually viewed as a means to achieve something. If I set a goal to lose x pounds in three months, then what I am pursuing is the goal itself. Velocity based goals take a completely different approach. The purpose of a velocity based goal is to serve to direct, focus and amplify the growth you are experiencing right now.

Imagine life is like climbing an infinitely large cliff side. Positional thinking tells you to try and get as high up the cliff as you can. Positional goals are used to reach new plateaus on the cliff. Velocity based thinking tells us that getting really high up on the cliff is irrelevant given its infinite nature. Instead velocity based thinking tells us that the true experience of life has to come from the rate at which we are climbing the cliff. Sitting at one notch of the cliff for too long is boring and unsatisfying regardless of your height. Velocity based goals in this sense are not used to reach the plateaus themselves, these goals are used to encourage, push and measure the rate at which you are climbing.

The key difference between positional goals and velocity based goals is simple. If you fail to achieve a positional goal, this is usually very demotivating. This is often why so many new goal setters fail to continue with the practice. The pain of failing to achieve when you’ve tried your best is often too great. Velocity based goals remove this problem entirely. Because the goal was simply a servant of directing and pushing your own growth, as long as you know you were trying your best (maximum velocity possible) then the goal was successful regardless of whether you underestimated the deadline necessary.

A velocity based paradigm is actually far more effective in improving our position.

The reason is actually rather simple. Positional based thinking is built on the notion of competition. As a result, we strive to make leaps ahead in our position based on where we are compared to others. If we are on the top then we slow down, for what is the point of trying really hard when you are already in the lead? If we are on the bottom, negativity and pessimism often cripple our growth. Position based thinkers tend to only achieve a maximum velocity when they feel they need to increase their position, yet that positional increase is achievable. Velocity based thinking doesn’t have this weakness. People who truly live this ideal are at a maximal velocity all of the time. Being at the top or bottom holds no distinction to these people. Rich or poor, strong or weak, healthy or ill these people are always traveling at a speed which is the most they can possibly achieve.

—————————-

I have always been a Velocity believer but what I like about personal velocity is it isn’t about frickin’ milestones and moving up the ladder and crap like that. It is about actions and objectives in a “movement” framework. And movement at your own pace. Its not a competition, but rather just with a goal of improving personal being. Judging yourself against … well … yourself I guess.

And with that I get to complete the circle on this quote and thought:

“That I am today; that I will be tomorrow.”

The only really important word L’Amour uses throughout this thought is “I.”

It’s not about competition.

It’s not about goals and objectives.

It is about I. And what “I” wants <or needs>.

That said. Life is tough enough without having to have someone else tell you how to ‘progress’ personally. Go your own speed. Fuck what anyone says.

Sure. Business weighs you down with meaningless milestones & expectations all the time.

Sure. Society, in general, crams goals down your throat all the time.

And, sure, becoming who you want to be “tomorrow” takes lots and lots of work.

But. I would suggest you are actually minimizing your chances of success if you always go the speed of what everyone else is demanding of you. Maximizing your ‘self success’ is mots likely found in finding, and going, your own velocity.

Anyhow.

I love this quote.

Love it mostly because I like the way it gives the truth instead of some pithy inspirational flippant quote. I like it because while it frames time in a today-tomorrow dimension it doesn’t say how fast it should be, or needs to be, done. You choose the velocity in which it happens.

“We have always held to the hope, the belief, the conviction that there is a better life, a better world, beyond the horizon. “

Franklin D. Roosevelt

======

Life barrages us with fairly relentless consistency. Usually that consistency is made up of a random combination of all the things we have planned <our “let’s control our destiny” stuff> with the unexpected and the unforeseen which inevitably makes us feel like we are out of control.

This can be personal.

This can be work organizational.

Heck.

This can even be on a country level.

Regardless of the grander perspective, on any given day you look around at the relative carnage of the day seeing your plans in disarray and hopes & dreams nowhere in close proximity to your current reality and you think to yourself “how the hell did we get into this shithole.”

That is where conviction comes into play.

You, or we, are not really in a shithole. You just have had what you thought would happen or should be happening, well, not happen. And, because Life has consistently made you run this random gauntlet before, you have some threads of belief that exactly the same thing will happen again tomorrow.

In other words. Your conviction of ‘something better beyond the horizon’ is a little blurrier than it was the day before.

Look.

This is not about Hope, this is about belief or conviction. I say that because each of us has conviction within us. It is the most basic conviction that no matter how bad it is it will get better and there truly is something better somewhere beyond the horizon. That’s not hope, that’s belief. That’s not optimism, that’s simply proof of survival <I survived yesterday so its fairly likely i will survive tomorrow>.

Yet, while I am 99.9% sure that this conviction resides within each and every one of us I am also 99.9% sure that all of us encounter something at some point which makes us question or doubt that conviction.

I call this ‘the bridge of conviction.’

Think of it this way.

Life is a long winding path. And, on occasion you come to a bridge. You hate heights and the bridge can maybe look a little shaky on occasion.

You stand at the end of it and … well … pause.

You maybe even question the conviction & wisdom of the path you are on.

What makes you finally take that first step … and the next … and the next … and cross that bridge is the conviction that on the other side is something better.

I would also like to point out that it is this conviction which makes you look forward and not backwards.

“Better” inherently cannot reside in the past. It cannot be found somewhere in retracing your steps on the path you have taken. Nor is it really a comparison thing. It’s simply a version of change <I have changed in some way from yesterday &, in general, change is good — (whisper: even though I cannot quite put my finger on what exactly changed) ..>.

What was will be as it was and no longer exists as what you once knew. Conviction inherently knows this <although all of us fight conviction on this on occasion>.

I say all this just to point out that no matter how bad the current time or situation may look, more likely than not, it is actually not that bad.

In other words.

No matter how bad one person may appear to affect your view on what is … what will be will most likely be affected much less by that one person, or one event, than you think now.

No matter how bad YOU view what is … what will be will most likely be affected much less by Life, or even the current situation, than you think now and more by what you end up doing and choices you make tomorrow <and the days afterwards>.

No matter how bad the horizon may be blurred in your view, something better really does reside beyond the horizon.

Why do I feel so confident in saying so?

“We have always held to the hope, the belief, the conviction that there is a better life, a better world, beyond the horizon. “

Conviction is a powerful, resilient, source of energy which, 99% of the time, is what gets you to the horizon.